DCT
2:24-cv-00258
Hyper Ice Inc v. TJX Companies Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Hyper Ice, Inc. (California) and Hyperice IP Subco, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: The TJX Companies, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Miller Barondess LLP; Scheef & Stone, LLP
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00258, E.D. Tex., 04/17/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s commission of infringing acts within the district and its operation of a regular and established place of business, specifically a T.J. Maxx retail store, in Longview, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that various models of battery-powered percussive massage guns sold by Defendant infringe one utility patent and one design patent covering the technology and appearance of such devices.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the market for personal, portable percussive massage devices used for deep muscle therapy and pain relief.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted utility patent, U.S. 11,857,482, claims priority back to a 2013 provisional application through a chain of continuation applications. The asserted design patent, U.S. D886,317, also stems from a family of related applications with priority dating to 2018. The complaint notes that Plaintiff’s own "Hypervolt" line of products are covered by the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-07-01 | ’482 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 61/841,693) |
| 2018-01-01 | Plaintiff's "Hypervolt" Product Line Launch (at least by) |
| 2018-02-22 | D’317 Patent Priority Date (App. No. 29/637,855) |
| 2020-06-02 | D’317 Patent Issued |
| 2024-01-02 | ’482 Patent Issued |
| 2024-04-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,857,482 - "Massage Device Having Variable Stroke Length" (Issued Jan. 2, 2024)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that prior art massaging devices were often bulky, became excessively hot, were noisy, and were difficult to use for extended periods (’482 Patent, col. 1:26-31).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a hand-held percussive massager designed for improved ergonomics, thermal management, and ease of use. It features a drive mechanism that converts a motor's rotary motion into a piston's linear reciprocating motion, a concept known as a "Scotch yoke" drive (’482 Patent, col. 5:1-14). The design also incorporates a heat sink in a separate housing cavity from the motor to facilitate cooling, and a quick-connect mechanism for attaching different massage heads (’482 Patent, col. 6:11-28; col. 6:46-54).
- Technical Importance: The described configuration sought to create a lighter, cooler, and quieter device, making deep tissue percussive therapy more accessible and effective for personal use (’482 Patent, col. 1:21-25).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- a housing;
- a piston with a proximal end, a distal end, and a substantially cylindrical bore at the distal end;
- a motor within the housing operatively connected to the piston's proximal end to cause reciprocation at a first speed;
- a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and
- a quick-connect system at the piston's distal end for securing a massaging head, which is configured to allow the head to be slid into the bore while the piston is reciprocating.
- The complaint’s phrasing "at least Claim 1" suggests a reservation of the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Design Patent No. D886,317 - "Percussive Massage Device" (Issued June 2, 2020)
The Invention Explained
- The D’317 Patent claims the ornamental design for a percussive massage device as depicted in its figures (D’317 Patent, Claim). The design's overall visual impression is characterized by a T-shaped body, where a vertical cylindrical handle is perpendicular to a horizontal cylindrical housing.
- Key features of the claimed design include the specific proportions and junction of the handle and housing, a vented cap on one end of the horizontal housing, and the general shape of the massage head attachment point at the other end (D’317 Patent, FIG. 1, FIG. 3). The broken lines in the figures, such as those depicting the texture of the massage head tip, indicate elements that do not form part of the claimed design (D’317 Patent, Description).
Key Claims at a Glance
- As is standard for design patents, there is a single claim for the ornamental design shown in the drawings. The scope of this claim is defined by the visual appearance of the device illustrated in solid lines.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names several accused products:
- For the ’482 Patent: TRAKK (Punch Full Body Massage Gun, Deep Muscle Full Body Massage Gun – 4 Speed); Aduro Sport (Elite Recovery Massage Gun, Elite Recovery Massage Gun Mini, Recovery Massage Gun with Max Grip); and Everlast (Beast Massage Gun) (Compl. ¶13).
- For the D’317 Patent: Aduro Sport (Elite Recovery Massage Gun) and Everlast (Beast Massage Gun) (Compl. ¶18).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint identifies the accused products as "battery-powered percussive massage devices" (Compl. ¶22). It does not provide further technical detail about their internal mechanisms or specific modes of operation.
- The products are alleged to be sold and offered for sale by Defendant TJX through its various retail chains (T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods, Sierra) and associated e-commerce websites (Compl. ¶¶3, 4).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’482 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe Claim 1 of the ’482 Patent but does not map specific product features to claim elements in detail.
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing; | The complaint alleges the accused "battery-powered percussive massagers" possess a housing. | ¶22 | col. 3:35-37 |
| a piston having a proximal end and a distal end, the distal end of the piston having a substantially cylindrical bore; | The complaint alleges the accused massagers contain a piston with the claimed features, including a bore at the distal end. | ¶22 | col. 6:57-59 |
| a motor at least partially within the housing and operatively connected to the proximal end of the piston, wherein the motor is configured to cause the piston to reciprocate at a first speed; | The complaint alleges the accused massagers have a motor that drives the piston in a reciprocating motion. | ¶22 | col. 3:56-62 |
| a drive mechanism that controls a predetermined stroke length of the piston; and | The complaint alleges the accused massagers include a drive mechanism controlling the piston's stroke length. | ¶22 | col. 11:26-29 |
| a quick-connect system... wherein the quick-connect system is configured to secure the first massaging head... by a proximal end of the massaging head being slid into the bore while the piston reciprocates the predetermined stroke length at the first speed. | The complaint alleges the accused massagers include a quick-connect system with this specific functional capability. | ¶22 | col. 7:6-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: The final limitation of Claim 1 requires that the quick-connect system be "configured to" secure a head "while the piston reciprocates." A central factual question will be what evidence supports this functional allegation. The dispute may turn on whether the accused devices were intentionally designed for this capability or if it is merely a theoretical possibility.
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's allegations are conclusory and not supported by specific factual descriptions or visual evidence of the accused products' internal workings. A key point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products' internal components (e.g., motor, piston, drive mechanism) meet the specific structural and functional requirements of the claim.
D’317 Patent Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that the overall ornamental appearance of the accused Aduro Sport and Everlast massage guns is substantially the same as the design claimed in the D’317 Patent (Compl. ¶¶18, 26). However, the complaint does not provide any images or visual representations of the accused products, precluding a direct comparison between the accused products and the claimed design based on the provided documents. The core of the design patent infringement analysis will rely on evidence developed during discovery.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’482 Patent
- The Term: "quick-connect system ... configured to secure the first massaging head ... while the piston reciprocates"
- Context and Importance: This functional language is a critical limitation. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused devices are found to be configured to allow attachment during operation, a standard that may be interpreted as requiring more than incidental capability. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links a structural element ("quick-connect system") to a specific action ("secure ... while the piston reciprocates"), creating a high bar for infringement that may be difficult to prove.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be read broadly to cover any system that allows for rapid head replacement, pointing to general statements like "the exemplary quick-connect system 600 allows a user to quickly switch massaging heads 620" (’482 Patent, col. 6:54-56).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the specific teaching that the head's end is "rounded, pointed or tapered... to allow it to easily slip into the opening 608 even while the piston 608 is moving" (’482 Patent, col. 7:8-12). This suggests a specific design consideration, and a defendant might argue that "configured to" requires this intentional design, which its products may lack.
For the D’317 Patent
For design patents, claim construction primarily involves determining the scope of the claimed design by identifying the ornamental features shown in solid lines, as distinguished from the unclaimed environmental or functional aspects shown in broken lines. In the D'317 patent, the overall T-shape, handle, and housing are claimed, while elements like the massage head tip are excluded (D’317 Patent, FIG. 1-8, Description). The central dispute will not concern the definition of a text-based term but rather the application of the "ordinary observer" test to the overall visual appearance of the claimed design as a whole.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement through offers to sell and sales by the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶11, 16, 21, 26). No specific facts are alleged to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the Defendant having knowledge of the patents "By no later than the date of filing this Complaint" (Compl. ¶19). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit knowledge rather than any alleged pre-suit notice.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A key evidentiary question will be one of "functional capability": For the ’482 utility patent, can Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to prove that the accused products contain a "quick-connect system" that is not only structurally present but is specifically "configured to" allow attachment of a massage head while the piston is actively reciprocating, as required by the claim language?
The central issue for the D’317 design patent will be a matter of "visual comparison": Once evidence is introduced, is the overall ornamental appearance of the accused massage guns "substantially the same" as the patented T-shaped design in the eyes of an ordinary observer familiar with the prior art, or are the differences significant enough to avoid infringement?
A foundational issue may be the "sufficiency of the pleadings": Given the absence of specific factual allegations mapping accused product features to claim limitations, particularly the lack of any visual evidence for the design patent claim, an early dispute may arise over whether the complaint meets the plausibility standard for pleading infringement.